Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2008 Jan 14:8:12.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-12.

Risk adjustment performance of Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidities in ICD-9 and ICD-10 administrative databases

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Risk adjustment performance of Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidities in ICD-9 and ICD-10 administrative databases

Bing Li et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: The performance of the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity measures in predicting patient outcomes have been well validated with ICD-9 data but not with ICD-10 data, especially in disease specific patient cohorts. The objective of this study was to assess the performance of these two comorbidity measures in the prediction of in-hospital and 1 year mortality among patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), diabetes, chronic renal failure (CRF), stroke and patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

Methods: A Canadian provincial hospital discharge administrative database was used to define 17 Charlson comorbidities and 30 Elixhauser comorbidities. C-statistic values were calculated to evaluate the performance of two measures. One year mortality information was obtained from the provincial Vital Statistics Department.

Results: The absolute difference between ICD-9 and ICD-10 data in C-statistics ranged from 0 to 0.04 across five cohorts for the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity measures predicting in-hospital or 1 year mortality. In the models predicting in-hospital mortality using ICD-10 data, the C-statistics ranged from 0.62 (for stroke) - 0.82 (for diabetes) for Charlson measure and 0.62 (for stroke) to 0.83 (for CABG) for Elixhauser measure.

Conclusion: The change in coding algorithms did not influence the performance of either the Charlson or Elixhauser comorbidity measures in the prediction of outcome. Both comorbidity measures were still valid prognostic indicators in the ICD-10 data and had a similar performance in predicting short and long term mortality in the ICD-9 and ICD-10 data.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Iezzoni LI. In: Risk adjustment for Measuring Health Care Outcomes. Iezzoni LI, editor. Chicago: Health Administration Press; 2003.
    1. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998;36:8–27. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199801000-00004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dominick KL, Dudley TK, Coffman CJ, Bosworth HB. Comparison of three comorbidity measures for predicting health service use in patients with osteoarthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism. 2005;53:666–72. doi: 10.1002/art.21440. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gabriel SE, Crowson CS, O'Fallon WM. A comparison of two comorbidity instruments in arthritis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:1137–42. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00124-9. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources